Indian Nation could put more land into trust, experts say

Placing 13,000 acres of Oneida-owned land into federal trust would set at least two precedents that could have a lasting impact, local officials and experts said Friday.

Elizabeth Cooper

Placing 13,000 acres of Oneida-owned land into federal trust would set at least two precedents that could have a lasting impact, local officials and experts said Friday.

- It would establish a footprint from which the Oneidas could add more land into trust in the future.

- It would also establish the federal government's ability to create trust lands in the states formed out of the original 13 colonies.

U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, said he worried that 13,000 acres was only the beginning of what the Oneidas could put into trust.

“When this is done, the Oneidas can turn around and make a second request, etc., etc., until they get the size of a reservation they deem appropriate,” he said. “Now we are talking about thousands of acres that are using the land-into-trust as a vehicle to create reservations, which was never intended.”

When applying for land to go into trust, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs generally favors land that abuts property already in trust, said Robert Batson, government lawyer in residence at Albany Law School.

“One of the criteria is that it is adjacent to land already held in trust,” he said. That might make future applications easier for the Nation, he said.

Nation officials offered no comment Friday beyond a general statement citing the opportunity for greater cooperation.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs' study released Friday states that the fact that any given parcel of Oneida land isn't put into trust this time doesn't mean that it can't be later.

“Omission of these lands from trust should not be interpreted as an indication that the Nation is precluded from filing future applications to take the subject land into trust,” the document's executive summary reads.

Arcuri said if it's approved, the impact of the bureau's decision could be far-reaching.

“I think we can make an argument that this is the biggest change in Indian policy in a significant amount of time,” he said.

Batson said that because New York was one of the original 13 colonies, there is no true precedent for putting land into trust in the state. In the West, where trust applications are more common, the federal government oversaw territories before they became states.

“If this takes place, it will be the first land-into-trust we've had in the state,” he said. “This really is without precedent in the state.”

Assemblyman David Townsend, R-Sylvan Beach, said he didn't believe the federal government had the right to take land in New York into trust.

“The federal government does not have legal authority to take land into trust in New York without violating the U.S. and state constitutions,” he said in a press release. He cited several court rulings and federal acts to back up his point.

If any land were placed into trust, it would not open the door for Indian tribes to start buying up land indiscriminately and placing it in trust, he said. The land the Oneidas have applied for was already part of an area designated as their reserva¬tion by the Treaty of Canandaigua in 1794, Townsend said.

Observer-Dispatch

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.